Sometimes you’ll put up a good fight and lose. Sometimes you’ll hold on really hard and realize there is no choice but to let go.

Acceptance is a small, quiet room.

–

Cheryl Strayed

==

“The whole is simpler than the sum of its parts.”

–

Willard Gibbs

====================

While attaining leadership positions is often a difficult weaving and winding path strewn with obstacles, losing your leadership role is pretty easy. It is easy because, well, while the compass to actually being successful leadership has a clear center line <uniting in a common cause> the path has to be wide enough to accommodate all the lanes necessary so that the organization can fit on the path <you cannot leave some behind and you cannot just take the “we few” along for the ride>.

Alignment in business is always a difficult thing.

Shit.

Alignment in any group environment is always a difficult thing.

Alignment is a multi lane highway, not just offering a center line, which needs to be continuously paved with a deepening trust and cooperation. But, suffice it to say, nothing kills trust & cooperation faster than lack of trust in competency. In other words “not knowing your shit.” Words need to meet actions, actions need to meet decisions and decisions need to meet the greater needs & wants of the whole not just the parts.

All leaders, all of us, have made promises as we assumed responsibility. Some were hard promises and some were hopeful promises. As we shifted into leadership maturity we learned, often the hard way, how to shade the promises properly. What I mean by that is while in our minds something was a hopeful promise, in our employee’s ears it was a real promise <albeit … the savvier ones were skeptical>.

Ah,skeptical. I will suggest the ‘skepticals’ are the most important employees in an organization in terms of “mutual progress” and the ultimate success objective. Skepticals are the ‘swing employees’, i.e., the ones who held your organization together or tore it apart.

The skepticals listened to how the hopeful promises were shared. The skepticals discerned whether you … well … “knew your shit.” This is more the attitudinal part.

The skeptical also view with an eye toward another aspect. What you actually do, or did as things proceed, with your hopeful promise. This is the functional part.

While any business leader worth half a shit only offers ‘hopeful promises’ which contain at least a glimmer of possibility those words then have to shift into “what we are gonna do to attempt to make that glimmer a reality.”

Oh. Yeah. This is the plans, the what we are gonna do, that kind of pragmatic practical shit.

This is where skepticals really own your ass.

They are the careful readers of promises who sit back and ask themselves whether they want to believe such a thing badly enough to overlook its improbability. They are the ones who can actually drive the organization through improbability towards probability.

Yeah. Even more so than the delusional rabid believers. Why? Because the ‘believers’ are far too often blind to the real obstacles and wildly bludgeon their way toward some objective no matter how improbable the objective. Believers have a nasty tendency to create carnage.

It is the Skepticals who create a path which is sustainable.

Skepticals are always, well, skeptical of the ‘new thoughts’ you share with them and relentlessly compare it against not only what they know but also against whatever other information is out there <they are the ones who maddeningly demand “have you done this before and where”>. Skepticals are always, well, skeptical enough they focus on what I believe the Intelligence Community calls ‘expectability.’

Skepticals understand that when promises are made there is a significant difference between ‘it might be true’ versus ‘you can’t prove it’s not true.’ They are quite good at recognizing when you are misleading versus when you are honestly trying to get the organization somewhere … even if it does seem slightly improbable.

Look. No one can be sure of anything 100%. And an organization is never 100% aligned when a new leader steps up to assume the responsibility. Therefore you, everyone, assigns a rating to information. And an organization with a strong skeptical segment most typically turns to these skepticals, not the believers, for some guidance on how to rate the leaders words & promises. Outside of the rabid few, an organization is usually not willing to run right out of the gate with a new leader <and we who have led know that>.

You assume as you step to the front of the room that the Skepticals look at you with an uneasy sense you are simply playing your role and not really worthy of the role. They seek to get behind what they, skeptically, view as the mask of who you are and what you offer.

You learn quickly that you, and consequently the organization, are doomed out of the gate if they end up frustrated. Frustrated either that they cannot discern what is behind the mask or frustrated that what they can see looks less than what is needed to deliver upon the promises made or frustrated by what they view as “making shit up” versus “knowing your shit.”

I know everyone knows this, but a leader can get fired for any number of reasons. The ones most overlooked are:

Failure to convert skepticals <attitudinally>

Failure to convert skepticals <functionally>

Converting Skepticals is always the key to organizationally unity <sorry, no, it is not breeding excitement among the fewer believers nor is it attempting to placate the non-believers>.

I say that to make another point.

Skepticals reside in the promised land for a leader. One foot in hopeful promise and one foot in practical promise.Most good leaders recognize that there is a significant difference between war against the status quo and war against stagnancy. Status quo, most typically, has aspects of shit that keeps the trains running. In other words, not all status quo is bad and throwing out the baby with the bath water is never good.

And, therefore, you learn very very quickly as a leader you just cannot lie and that hyperbole kills you with Skepticals. You realize it is dangerous, to the organizational success and your own success, to embrace any kind of absurd unblinking willingness to look your people in the eye and flat out lie to them. You just cannot do shit like say “things are going great … just the way they planned” when to the skeptical, and possibly the organization as a whole, it sure appears like “there is a lot going wrong.”

This believability gap can very quickly shift from a simple hiccup on the path or crack in the alignment plan to a crevasse of dysfunction. Regardless. None of that suggests alignment or unity. It all undercuts competency and creates concerns with regard to capabilities, planning and implementation … all of which are the foundation on which any leader stands upon <even more so than vision and hope>.

Discrepancies force people to choose between what they hear and what they see and what they actually know in their own experience.

A leader can only create an upside down world for so long before the skepticals decide to make it right again – whether the leader wants it to be that way or not.

In the end?

Ignore the Skepticals at your own peril. Any successful leader will tell you focusing on Believers will not only put your own career in danger … but it puts the organization, as a whole, at risk.

Up to a point a man’s life is shaped by environment, heredity, and the movements and changes in the world around him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate.

Everyone has it within his power to say, ‘This I am today; that I will be tomorrow.’

The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

–

Louis Lamour

===============

So. This is about living Life and personal velocity (progress with momentum). I have written about self esteem and self image and living life, but until now I have never found a quote that summarizes a belief I have always had lurking in the back of my head.

“Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be.”

How awesome is that? (pretty awesome)

It is absolutely true that a lot of what may hold us back from our dreams, or maybe more importantly, being whatever it is we want to be isn’t our fault <or in our control>. Life throws a shitload of shit at us and a lot of it is completely out of our control. It would be foolish to not recognize that.

But.

The days when nothing seems to go right.

The days where dreams seemed to have vanished.

The days where ‘not drowning’ is the focus instead of ‘swimming.’

All those days are gonna happen – to all of us. And it is on these days where it becomes really really easy to focus on excuses. But. We do have power to shape our tomorrows. Ignore the excuses and recognize that even if circumstances make things difficult, improving things is NOT impossible.

Sure. Sometimes a little ingenuity is required. Sometimes you almost have to trick circumstances. Sometimes you have to zig when Life zags and sometimes you have to take some risks and get a little lucky.

Which leads me to these words:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

Absolutely … most people underestimate what they can do today.

Absolutely … most people over estimate what they can do tomorrow.

Despite that … it still comes down to two things: action and objectives.

Actions.

What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
This is all about first step, baby. Takin’ that first step. You constantly hear “I’ll do it tomorrow”. And when it doesn’t happen tomorrow, it becomes the next tomorrow and the next and …. well … you get it (and I will explain why under objectives).

But. While you hear that … what is actually the truth? What do people really do? (and you just may not always see it)

Here is the truth behind actions and this thought. People who decide mentally to “do something” actually, uhm, do something. No shit. They do take action. They do begin to “shape the clay of their life to become what they want to be.” They do.

Then what is the problem?

Objectives.

Doing is often dependent upon how we view our objectives and this sometimes gets mired down in meeting the sometimes farcical absurd expectations in the mind. That said. Let me take a minute on ‘objectives.’ Scott H Young wrote in May 2006, in a piece called “Balancing Today and Tomorrow“, about a nifty concept called “velocity based thinking (or goal setting)” versus positional goals:

—————————

How is it possible to balance living in each moment and the concept of personal growth and improvement? Doesn’t personal development imply a certain dissatisfaction with where you are in life? At the very least, doesn’t an obsession with personal growth indicate that you are constantly living in the future, rather than enjoying each moment? How can we remove this apparent dichotomy and get the improvement we desire along with satisfaction now? In other words, how can we live for today and still strive for tomorrow?

The old position based paradigm told us to focus on where we are in life. If we have a big house, a nice family and are in good health, then we can be happy. If we are poor, miserable and alone then we are depressed. Pretty simple. In this paradigm, our main focus is on our current position.

Some take this position based thinking to a slightly higher level when they don’t think about where they are but where they are going. Instead these people draw their level of happiness from the position they feel they will be in the future. Although this is an improvement, the cost of being unsatisfied with today is simply too high a price to pay for this paradigm.

There is an alternative paradigm, however. This is a velocity based paradigm. In this paradigm, where you are doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter where you are going to end up. From this perspective, our focus not where we are going, but rather, the rate we are getting there. This perspective tells us that being homeless or a millionaire makes no difference. It is only the rate at which they are improving that distinguishes them.

The major distinction between a velocity based goal and a position based one is mostly in how you view the goal. Positional goals are usually viewed as a means to achieve something. If I set a goal to lose x pounds in three months, then what I am pursuing is the goal itself. Velocity based goals take a completely different approach. The purpose of a velocity based goal is to serve to direct, focus and amplify the growth you are experiencing right now.

Imagine life is like climbing an infinitely large cliff side. Positional thinking tells you to try and get as high up the cliff as you can. Positional goals are used to reach new plateaus on the cliff. Velocity based thinking tells us that getting really high up on the cliff is irrelevant given its infinite nature. Instead velocity based thinking tells us that the true experience of life has to come from the rate at which we are climbing the cliff. Sitting at one notch of the cliff for too long is boring and unsatisfying regardless of your height. Velocity based goals in this sense are not used to reach the plateaus themselves, these goals are used to encourage, push and measure the rate at which you are climbing.

The key difference between positional goals and velocity based goals is simple. If you fail to achieve a positional goal, this is usually very demotivating. This is often why so many new goal setters fail to continue with the practice. The pain of failing to achieve when you’ve tried your best is often too great. Velocity based goals remove this problem entirely. Because the goal was simply a servant of directing and pushing your own growth, as long as you know you were trying your best (maximum velocity possible) then the goal was successful regardless of whether you underestimated the deadline necessary.

A velocity based paradigm is actually far more effective in improving our position.

The reason is actually rather simple. Positional based thinking is built on the notion of competition. As a result, we strive to make leaps ahead in our position based on where we are compared to others. If we are on the top then we slow down, for what is the point of trying really hard when you are already in the lead? If we are on the bottom, negativity and pessimism often cripple our growth. Position based thinkers tend to only achieve a maximum velocity when they feel they need to increase their position, yet that positional increase is achievable. Velocity based thinking doesn’t have this weakness. People who truly live this ideal are at a maximal velocity all of the time. Being at the top or bottom holds no distinction to these people. Rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or ill these people are always traveling at a speed which is the most they can possibly achieve.

—————————-

I have always been a Velocity believer but what I like about personal velocity is it isn’t about frickin’ milestones and moving up the ladder and crap like that. It is about actions and objectives in a “movement” framework. And movement at your own pace. Its not a competition, but rather just with a goal of improving personal being. Judging yourself against … well … yourself I guess.

And with that I get to complete the circle on this quote and thought:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

The only really important word L’Amour uses throughout this thought is “I.”

It’s not about competition.

It’s not about goals and objectives.

It is about I. And what “I” wants <or needs>.

That said. Life is tough enough without having to have someone else tell you how to ‘progress’ personally. Go your own speed. Fuck what anyone says.

Sure. Business weighs you down with meaningless milestones & expectations all the time.

Sure. Society, in general, crams goals down your throat all the time.

And, sure, becoming who you want to be “tomorrow” takes lots and lots of work.

But. I would suggest you are actually minimizing your chances of success if you always go the speed of what everyone else is demanding of you. Maximizing your ‘self success’ is most likely found in finding, and going, your own velocity.

Anyhow.

I love this quote.

Love it mostly because I like the way it gives the truth instead of some pithy inspirational flippant quote. I like it because while it frames time in a today-tomorrow dimension it doesn’t say how fast it should be, or needs to be, done. You choose the velocity in which it happens.

“We must live in the best way this existence that has been given to us, embracing the flow of events. It is up to us to try in every moment of our life to do our best.”

—

The Branches of Time

====================

So. A better business world. I imagine everyone feels this is an important objective, but:

Not everyone would define better the same

Not all better is created equal

Not all businesses believe a better world is the way to become better

In fact. On the third point I would suggest this is where ‘business improvers’ (consultants, gurus, futurists, etc) step in and play a role. The majority of business fixers fall into one of 2 camps:

The “let’s make your business run more efficiently” people. They’ll discuss process, simplification and digital transformation. Yes. They’ll couch efficiency in some nice fluffy narratives, but in the end they are simply suggesting the machine isn’t running as well as it could and needs to be finetuned or rebuilt. They see behavior as the be all end all.

The “people potential” people. They’ll discuss, well, people. How to get people to work better together, how to build an environment in which they are engaged (with caring AND process/tools/digital) and how to foster a healthy culture. They see attitudes as important as behaviors.

That said.

Ask any business leader and they will:

(a) always believe something in the business could be better &

(b) always be seeking to make things better.

Period.

I do not know one leader who is completely satisfied or, on the flip side of the coin, believe a business is maximizing its potential & opportunities.

Here is where different ‘betters’ start coming into play.

Most leaders address a desire to be better transactionally (albeit they may, on occasion, frame it as a ‘structural organizational betterment’). Yet, “better”, when one views it from a ‘world’ perspective, demands addressing structural elements. This includes engagement (which far too often business people think of transactionally).

Ah. Engagement.

Everyone knows the key to maximum productivity and maximizing business potential is engagement. Always has been and always will be. I would note that ‘engagement’ fans always focus on ‘people’ (working together, understanding vision, embracing meaningful work). but engagement, in a business eyes, often expands out to engagement with process, engagement with technology, engagement with machines/production lines, engagement with ‘system tools’ of which people are often the most critical aspect, yet, business will measure engagement “with” something, not “by” someone. That phrase distinction may be one of the most important thoughts I will share today. Ponder it.

But let’s go back to the people/human component … and transactionally. Despite all the discussion around culture (which is when people decide how they want to behave on a coherent fashion) the truth is most businesses try to ‘create engagement’ (which is a problem in & of itself) through transactional methods (which is a problem). Carrots & sticks. Incentives. “Bribes” (free lunches, ping pong tables, flex times, laptops, etc.). Not only is this not effective (at least in terms of creating long term systemic behavior), but it also shows a lack of understanding in what people truly care about.

All that said.

The business world knows it needs to change. I would suggest younger people feel more strongly about structurally addressing this then older business people who have learned to suffer/live in the business environment & therefore feel more like transactional things are the most pragmatic ways to ‘change it.’

The issue is that the gap between ‘knowing’ and actually ‘doing’ is a real sonuvabitch to cross.

I would suggest the key to crossing this gap is not in the ‘specialists’ or the experts in how things are already being done, the key exists in people who know enough about some specific skill to lay a pragmatic foundation and have the ability to see a new way to build to possibilities. I would suggest there are a number of these people out there who embrace that idea – Daniel Mezick, Perry Timms, Gustavo Razzetti, Neils Pflaeging, Edwin Van der Geest, the Corporate Rebels folks. While each of them may approach it a little differently, the business world needs more of these type of ideas/people if it truly wants to get better. We need more connectors, aligners, maybe call them the chiropractors of a better way of doing business and a better world.

Look.

Better business needs a structural change. Period.

Better business needs a vision, not transactional changes. Period.

Better business needs an attitudinal adjustment (toward organizational structure, toward how people skills can be maximized, toward how productivity is viewed, toward what businesses role in community/society is). Period.

Now.

I have hesitated to use Purpose because I believe (a) it is used improperly 90% of the time and (b) it is actually better to focus on engagement & contribution and Purpose/results will be an outcome. Purpose is the reason for which something is done or created, the reason for its existence, its use, and its usefulness. Usefulness to others is the mechanism of purpose’s well-documented positive individual and organizational effects. When individuals and organizations think and act with their use to others at the forefront, they’re being purposeful and making their unique contribution (source: Zach Mercurio).

I often translate for all my business leader friends who see “purpose” and panic that it is some nebulous ‘save the world’ bullshit:

“if the people are engaged and focused on contribution they will be more productive, generate more high quality output, be brand ambassadors, be innovative (yes, they will want to contribute ideas to the business itself), be more effective in their behavior (service, customer interactions, vendor relationships, communications) and, you know what? … you’ll be more profitable too.”

source: Zach Mercurio

Or. As Zach shared with me:

It’s actually a basic business principle that’s been dressed up by “thought leaders:” Purpose is contribution, or if you like, “value creation.” Purposeful organizations and their people focus first on contributing and on creating value. They trust that the effects (results) will follow. As Drucker once said, “Profit is not the purpose of a company. It’s the test of its validity.” The more valid your contribution, the more results you’ll see. Every “financial result” is mediated through a human being. Human beings who experience meaningfulness and purpose are far better mediators than those who just “need to get the numbers up!” Frantic leaders (i.e. traditionally-minded business leaders) focus first on producing results, but the problem is you can’t have get an effect without a cause. You can’t have a result without a contribution.

Anyway.

I will say this entire ‘better business for a better world’ topic is fascinating.

While we credit Millennials for the refinding of our business soul (its partially whatever we call Purpose, but its mostly a simple recognition that something is wrong in the way business is being conducted and there has to be a better way) the truth is that this has nothing to do with age or some generational labels. Mary Parker Follet in early 1900’s. Drucker in the 70’s. Toffler in 1985.

They told us this is the way to do business, but when we chose Friedman (with a good dose of Gordon Gecko) business started down the slippery slope of dollars over contribution & responsibility (not Purpose).

The issue now is, as we all know, getting off a slippery slope is hard (you cannot climb back up off it, you need to jump off and restart or get pulled off by a helping hand) so those on it are, well, on it. i find while we suggest it’s a love of the status quo more often than not most business leaders know they are on a slippery slope and can’t get off it.

I am not a Millennial and i have ached for changes like this for, well, forever. Drucker outlined all of this in New Realities 1990, Ewen in Captains of Consciousness 1976, & the Geckos ignored it and the non Geckos (like me) were not strong enough to fight it.

I will say that now we fight.

In the end.

A better way of doing business for a better world.

This is an incredibly difficult topic to navigate. A business first & foremost needs to be successful to survive and its objective is to do things to survive/thrive. And, yet, the path to do so is actually to NOT think about business, but rather think about people, attitudes & maximizing their potential. There is a delicate balance of two truths – a business needs to be in the business of doing business and people are at their highest engagement when they are doing things not because it is business but meaningful. therein lies the paradox. and within that paradox resides the potential.

But. There has to be a better way and we know there is.

Drucker clearly knew this.

Simplistically, while engagement is the key to productivity, contribution is the key to the future of business – a better way of doing business for a better world.

If people contribute, feel like they are contributing and the business, itself, contributes to the greater world the highest level of value (contribution) has been achieved.

I would argue in doing so the business itself will also attain its highest level of effective productivity, solid efficient productivity and consistent profitability. I am not sure what more a business could desire. I am also not sure how that isn’t better business for a better world.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

===============

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”>, but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them. This is also less a thought about managing individuals, but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now. I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>. Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought, if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you knowit is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders. They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are:

<1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness,

<2> managers over the age of 55 — mostly white ones,

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

===========

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

Indira Gandhi

============

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am no behavior expert, but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and, ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe and like”, well, the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler. You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office before I speak with any individual.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader, but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues. I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.

“Every man gets a narrower and narrower field of knowledge in which he must be an expert in order to compete with other people.

The specialist knows more and more about less and less and finally knows everything about nothing.”

=

Konrad Lorenz

——————

“I do not think I’m easy to define.

I have a wandering mind.

And I’m not anything that you think I am. ”

=

Syd Barrett

—————

Well. Someone asked me what I do.

I answered I am mostly a pain in the ass to current business consultants, leaders and people of my generation <50somethings who I believe, in general, have their proverbial heads up their asses>. I write, and speak, about the changing face of the business landscape and what that means for businesses.

My view of things suggest consequences:

– Young people in business disengage from what could be learned

– Young people in business manage on instinct <disregarding what older generations have done> … which is fraught with peril

– Young people in business make unnecessary mistakes

– Young people in business are now tending to guide themselves into a generalist role/view of business rather than a specialist <and older people thrive on hiring specialists, but value ongoing performance based on generalist qualities>.

I am only going to speak to the last point today.

I cannot remember where, but I saw someone write about being a generalist. Okay, what they actually said was none of us should be just one “thing” and we all possess a variety of skills – including skills we aren’t using.

This is one of my favorite topics to rant about. Being a specialist versus a generalist.

It drives me a little nuts that people naturally associate “being accomplished” with specialist.

It drives me a little nuts that people naturally associate “unfocused” with generalist.

Suffice it to say people’s perception when you suggest you are generalist is rarely <see: ‘never’> good. People seem to wonder if you just were not smart enough to specialize <which presumes ‘talented and skilled’> in something.

People seem to immediately assume you have some attention deficit disorder <why else could you not focus on one thing> or a general lack of ability to stay the course on one thing.

Maybe worst of all, people assume being a specialist means you do have a skill and being a generalist means you do not have a skill. That last thought is most bothersome because a good generalist actually offers the highest value skill – the ability to create structural value creation.

Regardless. I admit I have a love/hate relationship with specializing.

I love the fact someone can find something they are interested in, are good at and acquire a skill which permits them to offer a service which others can not.

I hate the fact someone can often blindly sacrifice learning and ‘enlightening the mind’ under the guise of this thing called specializing.

Far too often I find specialists have sacrificed so much outside of their specialty they know more about nothing <things outside their skill> than is actually good for them. While I admit I am biased I believe if you’re multi-skilled or curious over a variety of topics & skill development you tend to be more adaptable and more ‘evolving’ as a human being — and this person ultimately adds value anywhere and to anyone <ability to offer transactional value AND structural value creation>.

I believe I have stated this before. The world actually needs a mix of generalists & specialists and that alone means maybe we should not only give generalists a break <for not being a specialist> and maybe we should be encouraging generalist attitudes & behavior.

Anyway.

Suffice it to say successful people do not always do one thing. As a corollary doing a variety of things is not an exclusive characteristic of unsuccessful people.

My personal belief is that a generalist is too good to specialize.

And I wish more people were generalists.

I believe everyone is capable of a variety of skills and I believe most people have skills they aren’t using.

Me?

I specialize in being a generalist. And my specialty in discussions with people is to ask “what else?”

Huh?

<1> What do you do?

<2> What else?

Maybe that is my simplest thought with regard to specialists versus generalists, I just wish more people would pursue ‘what else’ in life.

Maybe view “what’s next” with curiosity and energy more often.

Maybe be a little more perpetually dissatisfied with what they know.

In the end. I imagine I don’t really dislike specialists or like generalists I simply abhor stagnancy and, in general, I view specialization as naturally arcing toward stagnancy and generalization arcs toward progress. That, in the end, is my best argument for generalization versus specialization.

Around the new year everyone gets into the prediction business. Basically, a shitload of people become “futurists.” Well. I wrote in 2011 the whole ‘futurist’ career was bullshit and suggested I could never be one. Let me begin by explaining where “Futurist” began.

The “Manifesto of Futurism,” written by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was published on the front page of the French newspaper Le Figaro on February 20, 1909. It proclaimed the desire of the author, and his fellow Futurists, to abandon the past and embrace the future.

The point here on the whole concept of a “Futurist” is that their very existence is disdainful of the present.

Anyway.

Should we have an eye to the future? Absolutely. To not do so is to remain stagnant with regard to thinking.

Should we ignore the present? Absolutely not. If there was ever a time that a Futurist discussed the present, now would be the time.

Future thinking is purchased in the present. In other words, something existing within the present – most likely some type of behavior is the future opportunity. Saying that permits me to say that I believe Futurists, or the label/title, is kind of silly. Suffice it to say looking at trends and envisioning ‘what could be’ doesn’t need a title. And you certainly cannot earn a living doing it if you get paid for successful futuristic prognostication.

Why? Because the probability of being right is very very low. Pretty much every so called futurist <excepting maybe Toffler & Drucker … who never called themselves Futurists> has had an incredibly poor success rate in outlining future trends & behavior <and sometimes even attitudes>.

“The futurist was never cutting edge or far ahead of the curve. He was often only just a few minutes in front of the pack, or a couple seconds ahead of the global zeitgeist, or at least of the middle american one. It is rare, and a gift, to be able to see something was going to be big in a mainstream way months and sometimes years before your hipsters, your early adapters, your so called thought leaders embraced it.”

The Futurist

Moving beyond simply slamming futurists, in my mind I believe futurists shouldn’t predict they should inspire thinking <which could beget the future>. This kind of career activity is sort of like NASA, i.e., unintended innovations and learning.

The truth of a trend spotter or a ‘futurist’ is that they steal <reassemble> the thoughts of others and repurpose them for slightly different purposes under the guise of ‘recognizing disparate facts that impact the bigger picture.’ Once again, I do not begrudge them. That takes a skill (I highly recommend both Mike Walsh books, Dictionary of Dangerous Ideas & The Algorithmic Leader as he is what I envision a Futurist SHOULD do). Its just that many of the so-called Futurists take advantage of a world where it is acceptable to not to know the answers to the questions that the world asks every second of the day. It’s okay to not know what you want, where you want to go and who you want to become.

It’s okay to wonder.

It’s okay to question and ask.

And it is okay to not to know<although those listening then take it as gospel>.

And what’s not okay is to stop wondering. So the faux Futurist steps in and uses all of those to create answers (to unanswerable questions) and create a made up future world everyone can think about.

Ok. All that said.

Here is a truth <and Futurists clearly understand this>. The people they are talking to don’t really want wisdom. Those people just want shortcuts to getting more. Therefore if the message doesn’t match the ‘more’ desires ultimately it doesn’t engage the listeners because it doesn’t contain the inevitability of something positive.

It may sound cynical but nowadays a message needs a sense of some guarantee that prosperity will never end <that is a thought from the book>. And therein lies my biggest issue, the fact that trend watchers are seeking future prosperity versus discussing empowering present prosperity.

That “seek future vs. empower present” is the issue we should skewer 99% of so-called Futurist, predictors, over.

The truth is that the future is actually found in the now. Uhm. I mean that future ideas are actually found in the now. Note that this ‘now’ is not just in thinking, but in doing.

Thinking about what is happening now <attitudes>.

Thinking about what is being done today <behavior>.

Say what? How can it be futuristic if it is just a derivative of something in the present?

Well. To me real futuristic trending type thinking has to have a slightly pragmatic foundation residing somewhere in the minds of the rising generation. The real, the truly meaningful, behavior shifts occur not within a generation, but within transition of generations. Therefore any pie in the sky type thinking has to be made up of some pie that <simplistically> the kids of the present have an interest in eating of. For any future type ideation will live or die not with existing attitude generations but more so in evolving attitude generations.

To be clear. People’s attitudes do, and can, evolve as they age and experience things <and they are exposed to new and different attitudes and behavior>. But that isn’t futuristic thinking, that is simply critical mass thinking (I recommend Mark Earls “Herd” for this).

It’s a different ability. That is someone who can look at existing trends and attitudes … mostly looking at those that reside in fractions or in the minority of minds … and figuring out which ones will actually gain enough traction to attain the critical mass to ‘evolve’ the majority of attitudes.

I say that but also suggest that this is often a Sisyphean task.

Attitudes are imprints. They are almost like tattoos. Once established they are almost impossible to remove.

Think about how the past minority point of views have shifted to a majority more mainstream view acceptance and, yet, there still remains a solid steadfast unrelenting minority attitude system in place. Evolution of attitudes is like glaciers. And they also tend to follow generations … and not single generations. Early adopter generation transitioning to a vocal minority generation to a majority acceptance generation and ultimately a generation who not only has the attitudes but behavior is established.

Ok. Last thought on predictions.

Toffler co-wrote the 1970 book Future Shock and also Power Shift and also The Adaptive Corporation <all of which I have sourced so often it is embarrassing>. And while some of his writings were off base and some a little bit of a stretch, most of his writings were incredibly insightful and we are living much of what he outlined then – today. He predicted the rise of the internet, the impact of the internet on the workplace, how technology would affect sociological norms as well as labor needs and he even discussed the decline of the nuclear family.

In general, he foresaw the larger impact related to technological advancement.

And far too often we ignore what he wrote and had the foresight to point out. My point is far too often today’s experts and pontificators act like what is happening today is some seismic shift reflective of an earthquake happening before our eyes.

They are wrong.

What is happening today is the tsunami occurring on our shores from the earthquake which occurred under some deep ocean decades ago. And that is what Toffler outlined for us. And that is what I wish far more people would invest the energy researching to better understand why things are happening in the here & now (not just Toffler but the underlying attitudinal shifts).

As I write I can look up on the closest bookshelf and see my well worn copies of Future Shock and PowerShift. Toffler writing should be mandatory for anyone who wants to discuss current trends and current business issues. And you, and I, should demand that they do so. To not do so is to commit professional malpractice. At its least worst it reflects intellectual laziness to discuss what is happening today without the proper background.

Well. Paradoxically … future ideas are actually best found in looking backwards — at those who are coming up behind … the young. Futurists have to look forward, but seek truth in the young. Their predictions will never come true if there isn’t a pragmatic realistic foundation to be found within the youth. With no traction, the idea, shit, any future type idea will die.

As I type that it sounds so obvious, yet, it seems like futurists and trend identifiers seem to focus on today’s people and gaze at the horizon.

So. This is about things you do in life and the remembrance of things past and the fact that in today’s society you cannot permit things you may, or may not have done, become lost and gone.

Oh. And I imagine this has to do with business and building a resume and ‘marketing yourself’ <a term I abhor almost as much as ‘personal branding’>. I begin this discussion with a quasi-Life truth warning about how things you do, in the end, can blow away in the wind<if you are not careful>:

———-

“I spend my time building castles in the air but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.”

Don Juan of Austria

——-

Now. To be clear. This is not about notdoing things, or not having the drive or passion or persistence to go and do, this is more about having actually done <things> and whether it matters if you tell anyone you actually did them or not.

Anyway. I just used a quote from Don Juan of Austria to make a point. He was a young man in the late 1500’s described as having an unquenchable appetite for glory and certainly a man of action. He was the leader, and victor, of the Christian coalition against the Ottomans in the battle of Lepanto at the age of 22 in 1571.

Yup. 22 years old. Oops. Only to die not too many years later of typhoid somewhere in the Netherlands <while seeking further glory & action>.

Well. We do not all have an ‘unqeuenchable appetite for glory’ <I know I do not>, but I do tend to believe that we all would like to have developed a nice list of ‘things I have done’ throughout our lives.

Glorious? Maybe. I think ‘meaningful’ would be a better word and thought. But here is one of the challenges Life throws you. It doesn’t really matter what you want or desire because society wants and demands something else. The whole world of ‘understatement’ and ‘being humble’ and ‘letting my actions speak for me’ seems to have disappeared.

I know … I know … that sounds cynical … but look around.

Self-help books scream “if you don’t tell anyone what you have done how will anyone <in this fragmented short attention span world> ever know what you have done … don’t fear telling people your accomplishments!!!!”<yes … they always include exclamation points>. Or … “you need to be your own best advocate … and don’t be afraid to tell people so.”

In addition, you cannot escape it in the business world because business management demands you to point out your accomplishments in interviews and annual reviews <at the same time demanding you never use “I” because that implies you aren’t a team player>.

Let’s be honest. Today’s world makes it difficult to be humble or quiet with regard to … well … anything, but especially your actions and accomplishments. Simplistically this happens because businesses want to pay people off of results, i.e., ‘responses’ not stimulus. Uh oh. That means you may be a catalyst, but you will get paid less than someone who ties themselves to results.

Accountability in business life … possibly in Life in general … for leaders.

Defining accountability in interviews and in business <from a personal perspective>.

– Accountability in our lives <us common everyday folk>

Personally I do not believe the majority of us have to show ‘accountability’ for our lives. I believe this mostly because most of us are just trying to do our frickin’ best without having to be accountable for all of our actions at the end of it all. Sure. We would maybe like to have a list of ‘things that I have done’ that reflects … well … a job well done. A measure of the overall effort we put in over time and at critical times <I tend to believe it is really really rare we would ever look back and say ‘wow … that was perfectly the best and I couldn’t have done better!” – note the shouting for affect>.

I tend to believe most of us will be pretty content saying we did the best we could.

Ah. But its a ‘res gestae’ world. What have you accomplished? Where is the list of things you have done? Suffice it to say, this sucks.

– Accountability in business life … possibly in Life in general … for leaders.

Now … leaders? Well. Yeah. They are accountable.

They accepted responsibility. They should be accountable and dammit … silly or not … I want them to step up to the plate as examples for the next generation of leaders and say “yeah … this is what I did … and didn’t do.”

As I type that … I will visit what actually got me thinking on res gestae … Roman Emperor Augustus. He was most famous for listing his deeds <Res Gestae Divi Augusti …. – Latin: “The Deeds of the Divine Augustus” – is the funerary inscription of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, giving a first-person record of his life and accomplishments>.

——-

By its very nature the Res Gestae is less objective history and more propaganda for the principate that Augustus instituted. It tends to gloss over the events between the assassination of Augustus’ adoptive father Julius Caesar and the victory at Actium when his foothold on power was finally undisputed. Augustus’ enemies are never mentioned by name. Caesar’s murderers Brutus and Cassius are not referred to by name, they are simply “those who killed my father.” The Battle of Philippi is mentioned only passim and not by name. Mark Antony and Sextus Pompeius, Augustus’ opponents in the East, remain equally anonymous; the former is “he with whom I fought the war,” while the latter is merely a “pirate.”

———

Some examples of deeds <or accomplishments> he listed:

16) I paid cash to the towns for the lands that I assigned to soldiers in my fourth consulship, and later in the consulship of Marcus Crassus and Gnaeus Lentulus

17) Four times I assisted the treasury with my own money, so

20) I restored the Capitol and the theatre of Pompey, both works at great expense without inscribing my own name on either. 2 I restored the channels of the aqueducts, which in several places were falling into disrepair through age, and

25) I made the sea peaceful and freed it of pirates. In that war I captured about 30,000 slaves who had escaped from their masters …

Well. While I worry that this can quite easily turn into self-propaganda I do see the value in leaders having ‘deeds.’ Do they write them themselves? Yikes. I don’t know. I would prefer some unbiased people providing the list, but I do like the fact that as a leader they are accountable. In addition, maybe this is where I am different from other people, I am okay if they sucked as a leader. I do not believe we demand this list to crucify them <or worship them>, but rather simply to learn. The fact that their ‘deeds’ were underwhelming or they under delivered on what was set out upon in the beginning is not the point. Huh? For a variety of reasons good, or great, Leaders do not succeed and just as often some people overreach and attain leader positions and are not really leader types. But if we do not demand that leaders list their accomplishments how can the next generation better assess whether they should lead or follow?

Augustus may have been a toga wearing blowhard, but he sure had an impressive list of accomplishments. I ahve no clue whether he was a good leader or not, but I do like the fact we have something to view as a ‘res gestae.’

–Defining accountability in interviews and in business <from a personal perspective>.

“Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place of at different times and places.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … facts which may be proved, as part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue but must be connected with it. Though hearsay evidence is not admissible, but when it is res gestae it can be admissible in a court of law and may be reliable evidence.

Anyway. This is whole res gestae and interviewing <or business in general> is an interesting topic & situation for me. And before I wrote this section I had to go for a run and ponder what I would say.

Here is a truth.

I am naïve about this whole res gestae and interviewing and business thing. Yup. I have been in the working world for over 25 years and not counting the gobs of interviews I had to do to get my first job I have had 8 interviews in my entire career and had 6 offers from those 8. And I have had 9 jobs <yes I got 2 jobs without interviews because they were old bosses reaching out and hiring me>.

I don’t interview. Well. I just haven’t, jobs have appeared.

That said. In an interview I imagine if you are investing in res gestae you only have to provide ‘reliable evidence’ as to things you have done — including some hearsay. In other words you can make shit up or create some very very tenuous links with regard to what you have done. But, in today’s interviewing world, you are increasingly being demanded to step up and list your accomplishments. Hearsay, tenuous or direct … whoa … provide no list … and no job offered. That is the equation in today’s business interviewing world.

Me? I won’t do that. Well. I certainly would struggle to do that <hence my hesitance to go out and interview>. Combine that challenge with the fact that, well, I know everything … and nothing. Let me explain. As a generalist I know a little about everything and not a lot about anything in particular. I imagine I am more of a catalyst type than I am an ‘accomplisher’ <at least in my eyes>.

So. I have a double whammy challenge in today’s world – I am a generalist <when the business world is endeared with specialists> and I don’t really accomplish anything <but organizations accomplish things around me>.

Bottom line?This whole topic is a tricky one for me personally in Life and in interviewing.

I don’t get, nor like, the whole concept of even listing ‘things I have done’ even in a resume.

I imagine I should be quite thankful that I have avoided having to go through the interview process a lot. I suck at listing ‘what I have done.’ The few times I have interviewed I suggest ‘situations in which I have been involved have tended to end in positive places.”

Inevitably I get the follow up question(s) … what did you specifically do? How did you contribute to that success? … in other words … res gestae … you are demanded to give ‘the list of things I have done’.

I don’t.

I won’t.

Ok. Res gestae and this whole personal interviewing thing. I am relatively sure I have done some meaningful things, but most likely not any more meaningful than a bunch of other people.

So how do I resolve this in my head? Geez. Shit. I will suck in interviews <because I won’t ‘res gestae’ like many others … or invest any time and energy in remembrance of things past> and I simply will hope that others will recognize that I provide value in some form or fashion. I will not play this game. It is quite possible that I am being foolish. But I also tend to believe in the long term … which permits me to remind everyone of the quote I opened with … “I spend my time building castles in the air but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.”

If people demand that I list all the castles I have built <in the short term> which will all inevitably blow away in the wind <over time> … I just cannot. How big is an accomplishment if it simply blows away in the wind one day? And I certainly doubt I am good enough to have built any castle that the wind cannot blow away some day.

Ok. So <the conclusion to this rambling observation>.

I can hope when all is said and done, just as Shakespeare did in his plays, in the end maybe I will simply ask for a “pardon “as his actors did if you don’t enjoy the show called my Life:

If we shadows have offended,

Think but this, and all is mended,

That you have but slumber’d here

While these visions did appear

And this weak and idle theme,

No more yielding but a dream,

Gentles do not reprehend.

If you pardon, we will mend.

If you believe that Life is a stage and we play our part <as I do in most cases> than I will take a bow and hope everyone will recognize I played my part as well as I could. That is all I hope that people remember about what I have done. In business, interviews and most importantly life.

Yup … after taking a bow … I will <as Shakespeare did> offer a good night unto you all. Give me your hands if we be friends … But. Please don’t ever ask me for a list of things I have done.

“Even if you know what’s coming, you’re never prepared for how it feels.”

=

Natalie Standiford

——

I admit. One of the things that consistently surprises me about Life is no matter how well, and how often, we prepare ourselves, we are never prepared for how we feel when “it” happens.

It’s one of the unfortunate surprises in Life.

You can prepare.

And practice.

And prepare more.

And dot your “I’s’ and cross your “t’s.”

And you can even mentally prepare yourself.

And, well, unfortunately you are never prepared for how it feels.

I tend to believe one of the unteachable things in Life is how to get thru that feeling. But … whew … we surely do try as hard as we can. We warn. We describe. We us examples and even metaphors. And, yet, we are never really prepared for how it feels. The issue? You can warn people and you can describe it to people, but, how do you explain feelings?

<note: you really cannot>

We try really hard to teach this and yet, in fact, we actually seem to be doing just the opposite by doing our best to NOT prepare people for this.

How do we do that?

We suggest all the preparation will make you the best you can be.

We suggest that investing in gobs of preparation will make you successful.

We suggest (as statements of truth) over and over and … well … over. We set expectations for not feeling that feeling <or feeling nothing that could impact expectations> because you are prepared.

Now. I am not suggesting we shouldn’t actually DO the preparation I am simply stating that all the great preparation goes out the window for however long the feeling crashes through all the preparation and hits you.

I believe we make this worse with all our‘preparation is the secret to success’ because I think then the feeling surprises even more because you’ve been convinced, in some form or fashion, all your preparation would be ‘enough.’

Oh. As I wrote this I hesitated to use the word ‘surprise’ and went to see if there was a better word. If you go to a thesaurus these are some of the words you get:

——

surprised:

having the feeling that you get when something unexpected happens

–

shocked:

very offended or embarrassed by something that you consider immoral

–

amazed:

very surprised

–

speechless:

so surprised, upset, or angry that you cannot think of anything to say

–

astonished:

very surprised about something that you did not expect

–

astounded:

extremely surprised or shocked

–

thunderstruck:

very surprised or shocked

–

staggered:

very surprised and shocked

–

at a loss for words:

not knowing what to say, especially because you are very surprised or shocked

——

Whew. Think about those words and being prepared.

How could anyone ever be ‘staggered’ or “shocked” or ‘astonished’ or even ‘thunderstruck’ if you were prepared?

How could you be at a loss for words if you were prepared?

Well. Take a moment. Be honest.

How often have you been staggered by a feeling even though you had ‘mentally prepared’?<you would be lying if you said never or even ‘rarely’>

There is a quote that says that the past has a perfection that the future could never hold.

Reality is quite similar.

When you prepare yourself mentally you create some perfection even among the possibilities or ‘inevitability’ of things that will be, but in the moment … in that moment … you cannot have envisioned that actual feeling. Reality just feels different.

You can prepare as perfectly as possible, mentally and physically, and you feel good because preparation has a perfection that reality can never hold. Perfection holds as you do the best you can, but everything changes the moment you ‘feel’ reality.

The other thing about preparing is, well, it envisions a stagnant moment (and Life doesn’t stop for anybody).

Let me add in that sometimes a split second can unravel all that well intended preparing. Yup. One seemingly innocuous moment can shake the foundation of your whole ‘well prepared’ world. Your entire life can be flipped upside down on the strength of what you had clearly envisioned as a predictable event.

Shit.

You had even predicted the feeling.

And prepared for it.

Oops.

You can’t prepare for the feeling.

—–

“Life takes us by surprise and orders us to move towards the unknown – even when we don’t want to and we think we don’t need to.”

Paulo Coelho

—–

Look. Preparing is part of being good. In Life and in general.

And I am certainly not suggesting anyone and everyone shouldn’t prepare for shit as best they can. All I am suggesting is that success is often defined not by the preparation, but rather what happens when the predicted event creates the unpredictable feeling.

Even if you know what is coming you are never prepared for the feeling. Being prepared can help, but don’t fool yourself into believing you are actually prepared for what you will feel.

Life will stagger, astound, amaze, surprise you, no matter how well prepared you are.

That is what Life does. That’s reality. So. Well. Be prepared for that at least.

Ok. I love what young people <tweens & teens> are doing these days with using their bodies to make a statement – writing messages on their skin.

To be clear <part 1>. This is not about tattoos. This is not even about temporary tattoos. This is about temporary messages being artistically delivered on their skin. Everywhere and anywhere on their bodies, from hands to feet to back and front.

It isn’t a fake tattoo.

Maybe it is just body writing <like sky writing?>. And it is frickin’ awesome.

To be clear <part 2>. I do not believe this idea is anti-tattoo or young actually listening to older people suggesting that committing to something like a tattoo is for life. I actually believe what they are doing is attitudinal, as in, a reflection of a generational attitude. Now. This attitude even has a name. Trendwatching <a trend futurist group> calls this type of attitude ‘transumerism.’ And boy oh boy does it embody our younger generation.

At the foundation of this generational attitude is a fact that in today’s world we are putting a higher and higher value on the temporary and the transient.

Uh oh. A lot of older people find this extremely uncomfortable. They wonder why no one can be consistent any longer. Or make a long term commitment. Or relax on one idea or opinion or thought anymore. Too bad. The young are embracing many opinions and thoughts. They appear to have learned to embrace a thought of the day and to feel free and express what they think now — express an opinion in the here & now.

Their view? <part 1> We are being topical.

We dare to make a statement in the moment when we believe it is most impactful.

In older media terms this is ‘recency’ what was, and is, still considered a viable strategy>. They recognize impact increases closer to the moment. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people may bitch they are being too reactive and that they should be more thoughtfully patient. I call ‘Bullshit.’ They are our youth and part of their job is to make us adults sit up and pay attention a little more to some shit we may not be paying attention to.

Their view <part 2> This is part of experiencing me – “experience is being part of what I know/think/believe.”

I would suggest this is a personal, inward focused, version of The Experience Economy in which people are selling experience as, well, themself. I am not suggesting ‘selling’ as in economic value, but rather ‘selling’ as extension of experience of being with me, part of me, or maybe – in brand terms – this is my promise I will deliver if you walk through the front door of my Life. While Joe Pine brought the concept of “The Experience Economy” to life in 2000, experiences are starting to out-value ‘things’ and the intangible and the temporary are building a higher value than many fixed unchanging tangible items, young people have extended ‘experience’ to embody, well, themselves.

Fixed items are losing value by becoming synonymous with boredom, with hassle or with being quickly-out-of-date <all things young people abhor when associated with self>.That loss of value, combined with increased ‘experience value’ has created this entire generation of ‘transumers’ (Trendwatching). They embody an experiential based economy and culture and self.

Therefore, driven by experiences instead of the ‘fixed’, by sensory entertainment, by discovery, by fighting boredom, they are starting to make fixed/unfixed statements as part of self expression – “experience me, experience my thoughts.”

Long term repercussions?

My guess is this means, as adults, they will increasingly live a transient lifestyle, freeing themselves from the hassles, and attitudes, of permanence <ownership and possessions>.

The risk?

In the inexperience <I hesitate to say immaturity> of youth it can become an obsession. By that I mean the fixed can be replaced by an obsession with the here and now, an ever-shorter satisfaction span, and a lust to collect as many experiences and stories as possible.

It is an attitude of: “hey, the past is … well … over … and the future is uncertain … so all that remains is the present. So what the hell … I am going live and make a stand in the ‘now’.

At its best, this means that attitudinally the young are finding more and more status not from ownership of products & things, but from an ability to change and make statements in a variety of ways, which change and evolve and adapt – permanently unpermanent.

I would suggest there is a tectonic shift in many of the traditional status cues in what is important in appearance <or how one looks> in the young. From a larger perspective we need to take note that this means they are gaining more status not from traditional labels <geeks, jocks, preppies, etc.>, but status based on attitudes and beliefs. The young are demanding self expression and, maybe more importantly, demanding status from self expression.

They are figuring out how to make their own mark in the world with everchanging experiences by not being silent about what they feel or believe.

As one professional body writer suggests:

“… I think that when we write a message in a part of our body, we touch the hope that this message is stronger than a simple piece of paper or other material When we use our bodies courier, we speak from the heart ..” .

This thing they are doing is representative of ‘temporary freedom’ or ‘fractional ownership’ of an idea or thought. It permits them to try out new things and escape unescapable commitment and obligations, dropping formality and offering endless new experiences.

I would suggest we should celebrate this. It represents curiosity and a slightly less judgmental, set in stone, view because expression changes and varies <it is more difficult to be judgmental on a moving target than a stagnant target>.

Me? I love how the young are figuring out how to make an impression and remain silent. It reminded me of a quote I saw attributed to the Dalai Lama:

“Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.”

Dalai Lama

I am certainly not suggesting today’s high school youth embody the Dalai Lama. But they are figuring out ways to express themselves in powerful ways.

I love this trend of type of body writing.

I love how our young are learning how to not only express themselves but show how to express thinking … real thinking.

I love the attitude <and behavior>.

And I think we older folk should start learning how to accept an entire generation of ‘transumers’ built upon an attitude of ‘loving the transient and temporary.’ I say this because our tendency will be to slow them down and suggest that they are missing something in their constant shifting. We may focus on what I referred to as ‘fractional ownership of an idea’ as a bad thing. Instead we should be encouraging them and teaching them how to maximize that which they are and invest in making fractions wholes <like bricks in a foundation>.

That is an attitude that will need some strength on the part of us old folk in order to change.

And change is hard.

Oh.

Unless you are young. Because they are seemingly embracing some ongoing aspects of change <but still holding on to a very strong moral compass at their core>. But, most importantly, they are not just embracing change, they are addressing cultural attitudes and societal ‘misbehavior’ by taking a stand. They speak out on things that they believe need saying.

Silent, but powerful communication.

In the end?

“If you want to experience me, you need to experience what I believe.” This is the new experience economy.

“You’re the book I love the best, your skin only holds my truth.”

The skin of our youth may be holding truth up before our eyes. We just make damn well sure we see it.

“Blaming others is an act of refusing to take responsibility. When a person can’t accept the fact or the reality, they blamed another person or the situation instead of taking accountability.”

―

Dee Dee Artner

=================

“For every King is right in his own eyes and rests the blame to whoever he wishes to carry it.”

―

Auliq Ice

===================

Delegating. While I could argue delegating is one of the most difficult things you learn to do as you move up in an organization <and one you MUST learn or will inevitably fail>, accepting responsibility, blame or accolades, is a whole different discussion and an entirely different learning challenge.

I know.

I know.

That sounds odd even as I type that. You would think no one actually has to learn to accept responsibility for their, well, responsibility. But all you have to do is look around the hallways of any management floor and some leaders in the public eye and you will see a shitload of people who seem to have actually mastered the skill of placing blame on whoever they wish <other than themselves>.

Regardless. I would say that the difference between delegating and accepting responsibility can be captured in two key words — learn versus accept.

You have to learn how to delegate.

You have to accept responsibility.

Here is a truth. No one, and I mean no one, has to learn how to accept responsibility. You either accept it or you do not.

And to explain the ‘accept’ part let me remind everyone of “double joys and halve the griefs.”What I mean is that you learn to double down when accepting responsibility for ‘blame’ or failure and you only accept half the responsibility, at most, on the successes and accolades. In other words good leaders halve the griefs <if not accept all> to those you delegate to and double the accolades for those you delegate to.

That is the basic “good formula.”

But some people want zero the grief and 100% the joy. These are the quasi- leaders who authorize people to do things not out of good delegation but rather to distance themselves from any decision that may create a less-than-positive outcome.

Shit. No. Double shit.

There may be nothing more heinous in leadership management acumen than the delegation of responsibility with the intent to absolve one from potential negative outcomes. All potential repercussions get sifted first and foremost through the hands of the one who has now been authorized.

In other words that crappy leader handed someone some rope to potentially hang themselves with.

Setting my bitching & disdain aside, I have to ask why some run away from this responsibility.

Well. I will admit that making mistakes was a shitload easier years ago when I was a young whippersnapper attempting to move up in the business world. Bosses were fairly forgiving of mistakes and you learned that accepting responsibility for the bad as well as the good not only didn’t harm you but actually helped you grow as a person.

In today’s business world, shit, in the world itself, forgiveness isn’t that normal. Mistakes become opportunities to fire someone, demote someone or, in general, torture them. While in the good old days your mistakes became hallway whispers and break room gossip, today your mistakes become facebook posts, email chains and twitter memes. What this teaches people is assuming responsibility for a mistake has disproportionate consequences and doesn’t really help you grow as a person.

The way up, or to survive, seems to be somewhat dependent upon disproportionately shirking responsibility for the errors and disproportionately accepting responsibility for the successes.

It’s kind of the worst of both aspects.

In a past post I mentioned …‘accountability in today’s business world is stuck in the sludge at the bottom of the business moral barrel.’

I believe accountability for decision making in business is either nonexistent or far too random to be considered standard operating procedure.

To be clear <part 1>.

This is not about someone holding you accountable. This is about you holding yourself accountable especially when no one is holding you accountable.

To be clear <part 2>.

Today’s business world is strewn with cowards.

I know that sounds harsh, but not only do people fear being accountable in general they are absolutely scared shitless to be accountable for indirect consequences, i.e., being accountable for anything beyond the obvious cause & effect.

It is cowardly behavior.

And it gets worse in my eyes when I google search ‘integrating accountability in business’ and I find almost everyone discusses in some form or fashion the need to ‘clarify what it means to be accountable.’

WTF.

This is crazy to me.

Accountability for decision making, to me, equates to a some sense of fearlessness bred within an organization <some people call this “psychological safety”>. Fearless in terms of making mistakes <and not being overly chastised for doing so> and fearless in terms of a ‘doing what is right’ mentality.

All that said. Organization culture or not, people don’t need someone to define accountability or honoring commitments or any of that crap, people just need to assume responsibility & accountability as part of who they are and how they act. Holding yourself accountable is nothing more than following through with YOUR commitments and responsibilities whether you have authorized someone or delegated or any other excuse some of these cowardly leaders use to distance themselves from any real consequences.

Look.

We are responsible for our actions – all of them.

We are responsible for our inaction – all of them.

We are responsible for the repercussions of our actions & inactions – even the unintended results.

We are responsible for our thoughts and the behavior attached to them.

We are responsible for our mistakes.

And, yes, we are responsible for the actions & inactions of the people we have authorized shit to or delegated to.

Interestingly, an author Linda Galindo argues that the only true accountability is “personal accountability” and the only way to achieve it is to take responsibility for the outcomes of your choices, behaviors and actions– to the level of 85% of everything you touch or are associated with.

I could debate the 85%, but as far as the intent I couldn’t agree more. This seems like a hard thought for many in business to not only grasp, but accept.

Why? I could provide an excuse by suggesting in a world where it seems like collaboration is the standard operating procedure and tasks are delegated in a fragmented fashion <often under the guise of ‘specialists should work only on their specialty’> the actual outcome has been impacted by so many hands it is difficult to tie it to one hand, let alone the leader decision maker, directly.

This means many business people want to avoid assuming responsibility for others actions, or maybe better said, they don’t want to be accountable for something they didn’t have 100% ownership of.

This is really silly thinking.

No.

This is cowardly thinking.

Here is the good news.

People who have personal accountability are happier, more respected and more successful professionally.

People who have consistent accountability actually increase the likelihood that they WILL get some credit for indirect positive consequences.

So if you can fight your way thru the doubts in being accountable in certain situations and fight your way thru systems which seem to crucify you for mistakes and accept the responsibility, you will end up in a better place – as a person and professionally.

Best? You also get the satisfaction of laughing at all the cowardly assholes you see mumbling excuses, shifting responsibility and ultimately doing whatever they can to avoid any blame for the mistake/missed deadline/project gone wrong. The ones who are quick to point the finger at anyone and anywhere but themselves.

Yeah. I will admit. Some of those ‘blameless assholes’ are really slick when it comes to accountability and personal responsibility.

They vocalize responsibility … with caveats.

They accept positive accountability for anything that has any appearance of clear cause & effect wrapping it all up with anything that doesn’t have clear cause & effect and deflect negative accountability results with a flick of an “I authorized them to do it.”

They seek to have 0% griefs and 100% joy.

They are fucking cowards.

==

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

Ronald Reagan

==

In the end.

This is about personal responsibility and personal choice. If you do not dare to do what is right then … well … it is cowardly behavior.

==

“Manliness consists not in bluff, bravado or loneliness. It consists in daring to do the right thing and facing consequences whether it is in matters social, political or other.

It consists in deeds not words.”

Mahatma Gandhi

==

I honestly don’t care about cowardly behavior, daring behavior or heroic behavior. Doing what is right and accepting responsibility & accountability should be required behavior of our leaders and shouldn’t be celebrated, it should just be expected.

Me? I believe no one should have to hold me accountable for my actions & responsibilities. No one but me should set whatever standard I set for myself.

Look.

All jobs carry the burden of some responsibility. I don’t care if you are the most junior maintenance person or the most senior person in the world. And if you have some responsibility you will also have the burden of accepting responsibility for what you do, what you may have asked someone to do and even some shit that wasn’t done <but would have been within your purview if it had been done>.